From 6c0a8c771a71b13b998327e1cff52526634ce47a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yuntao Wang Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:04:23 +0800 Subject: bpf: Fix excessive memory allocation in stack_map_alloc() [ Upstream commit b45043192b3e481304062938a6561da2ceea46a6 ] The 'n_buckets * (value_size + sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket))' part of the allocated memory for 'smap' is never used after the memlock accounting was removed, thus get rid of it. [ Note, Daniel: Commit b936ca643ade ("bpf: rework memlock-based memory accounting for maps") moved `cost += n_buckets * (value_size + sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket))` up and therefore before the bpf_map_area_alloc() allocation, sigh. In a later step commit c85d69135a91 ("bpf: move memory size checks to bpf_map_charge_init()"), and the overflow checks of `cost >= U32_MAX - PAGE_SIZE` moved into bpf_map_charge_init(). And then 370868107bf6 ("bpf: Eliminate rlimit-based memory accounting for stackmap maps") finally removed the bpf_map_charge_init(). Anyway, the original code did the allocation same way as /after/ this fix. ] Fixes: b936ca643ade ("bpf: rework memlock-based memory accounting for maps") Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220407130423.798386-1-ytcoode@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c index 4575d2d60cb1..c19e669afba0 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c @@ -121,7 +121,6 @@ static struct bpf_map *stack_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG); cost = n_buckets * sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket *) + sizeof(*smap); - cost += n_buckets * (value_size + sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket)); err = bpf_map_charge_init(&mem, cost); if (err) return ERR_PTR(err); -- cgit v1.2.3 From 8f49e1694cbc29e76d5028267c1978cc2630e494 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Menglong Dong Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:12:27 +0800 Subject: bpf: Fix probe read error in ___bpf_prog_run() [ Upstream commit caff1fa4118cec4dfd4336521ebd22a6408a1e3e ] I think there is something wrong with BPF_PROBE_MEM in ___bpf_prog_run() in big-endian machine. Let's make a test and see what will happen if we want to load a 'u16' with BPF_PROBE_MEM. Let's make the src value '0x0001', the value of dest register will become 0x0001000000000000, as the value will be loaded to the first 2 byte of DST with following code: bpf_probe_read_kernel(&DST, SIZE, (const void *)(long) (SRC + insn->off)); Obviously, the value in DST is not correct. In fact, we can compare BPF_PROBE_MEM with LDX_MEM_H: DST = *(SIZE *)(unsigned long) (SRC + insn->off); If the memory load is done by LDX_MEM_H, the value in DST will be 0x1 now. And I think this error results in the test case 'test_bpf_sk_storage_map' failing: test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:bpf_iter_bpf_sk_storage_map__open_and_load 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:socket 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:map_update 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:attach_iter 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:create_iter 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:PASS:read 0 nsec test_bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL:ipv6_sk_count got 0 expected 3 $10/26 bpf_iter/bpf_sk_storage_map:FAIL The code of the test case is simply, it will load sk->sk_family to the register with BPF_PROBE_MEM and check if it is AF_INET6. With this patch, now the test case 'bpf_iter' can pass: $10 bpf_iter:OK Fixes: 2a02759ef5f8 ("bpf: Add support for BTF pointers to interpreter") Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao Reviewed-by: Hao Peng Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220524021228.533216-1-imagedong@tencent.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- kernel/bpf/core.c | 14 +++++--------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index d3a1f25f8ec2..845a4c052433 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c @@ -1653,6 +1653,11 @@ out: CONT; \ LDX_MEM_##SIZEOP: \ DST = *(SIZE *)(unsigned long) (SRC + insn->off); \ + CONT; \ + LDX_PROBE_MEM_##SIZEOP: \ + bpf_probe_read_kernel(&DST, sizeof(SIZE), \ + (const void *)(long) (SRC + insn->off)); \ + DST = *((SIZE *)&DST); \ CONT; LDST(B, u8) @@ -1660,15 +1665,6 @@ out: LDST(W, u32) LDST(DW, u64) #undef LDST -#define LDX_PROBE(SIZEOP, SIZE) \ - LDX_PROBE_MEM_##SIZEOP: \ - bpf_probe_read_kernel(&DST, SIZE, (const void *)(long) (SRC + insn->off)); \ - CONT; - LDX_PROBE(B, 1) - LDX_PROBE(H, 2) - LDX_PROBE(W, 4) - LDX_PROBE(DW, 8) -#undef LDX_PROBE STX_XADD_W: /* lock xadd *(u32 *)(dst_reg + off16) += src_reg */ atomic_add((u32) SRC, (atomic_t *)(unsigned long) -- cgit v1.2.3 From 28bbdca6a7a471921d890e5c0d70b6f7c99637a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yuntao Wang Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 22:26:22 +0800 Subject: bpf: Fix incorrect memory charge cost calculation in stack_map_alloc() commit b45043192b3e481304062938a6561da2ceea46a6 upstream. This is a backport of the original upstream patch for 5.4/5.10. The original upstream patch has been applied to 5.4/5.10 branches, which simply removed the line: cost += n_buckets * (value_size + sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket)); This is correct for upstream branch but incorrect for 5.4/5.10 branches, as the 5.4/5.10 branches do not have the commit 370868107bf6 ("bpf: Eliminate rlimit-based memory accounting for stackmap maps"), so the bpf_map_charge_init() function has not been removed. Currently the bpf_map_charge_init() function in 5.4/5.10 branches takes a wrong memory charge cost, the attr->max_entries * (sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket) + (u64)value_size)) part is missing, let's fix it. Cc: # 5.4.y Cc: # 5.10.y Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c index c19e669afba0..0c5bf98d5576 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c @@ -121,7 +121,8 @@ static struct bpf_map *stack_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG); cost = n_buckets * sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket *) + sizeof(*smap); - err = bpf_map_charge_init(&mem, cost); + err = bpf_map_charge_init(&mem, cost + attr->max_entries * + (sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket) + (u64)value_size)); if (err) return ERR_PTR(err); -- cgit v1.2.3 From 9adec7334969d9a20b9359ee745d17efc8f9890f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:47:24 +0200 Subject: bpf: Fix incorrect verifier simulation around jmp32's jeq/jne commit a12ca6277eca6aeeccf66e840c23a2b520e24c8f upstream. Kuee reported a quirk in the jmp32's jeq/jne simulation, namely that the register value does not match expectations for the fall-through path. For example: Before fix: 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P571 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok After fix: 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P8 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok As can be seen on line 5 for the branch fall-through path in R2 [*] is that given condition w2 != 0x8 is false, verifier should conclude that r2 = 8 as upper 32 bit are known to be zero. However, verifier incorrectly concludes that r2 = 571 which is far off. The problem is it only marks false{true}_reg as known in the switch for JE/NE case, but at the end of the function, it uses {false,true}_{64,32}off to update {false,true}_reg->var_off and they still hold the prior value of {false,true}_reg->var_off before it got marked as known. The subsequent __reg_combine_32_into_64() then propagates this old var_off and derives new bounds. The information between min/max bounds on {false,true}_reg from setting the register to known const combined with the {false,true}_reg->var_off based on the old information then derives wrong register data. Fix it by detangling the BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE cases and updating relevant {false,true}_{64,32}off tnums along with the register marking to known constant. Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking") Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: John Fastabend Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220701124727.11153-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 015bf2ba4a0b..20ffc609259c 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -7512,26 +7512,33 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg, return; switch (opcode) { + /* JEQ/JNE comparison doesn't change the register equivalence. + * + * r1 = r2; + * if (r1 == 42) goto label; + * ... + * label: // here both r1 and r2 are known to be 42. + * + * Hence when marking register as known preserve it's ID. + */ case BPF_JEQ: + if (is_jmp32) { + __mark_reg32_known(true_reg, val32); + true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg->var_off); + } else { + ___mark_reg_known(true_reg, val); + true_64off = true_reg->var_off; + } + break; case BPF_JNE: - { - struct bpf_reg_state *reg = - opcode == BPF_JEQ ? true_reg : false_reg; - - /* JEQ/JNE comparison doesn't change the register equivalence. - * r1 = r2; - * if (r1 == 42) goto label; - * ... - * label: // here both r1 and r2 are known to be 42. - * - * Hence when marking register as known preserve it's ID. - */ - if (is_jmp32) - __mark_reg32_known(reg, val32); - else - ___mark_reg_known(reg, val); + if (is_jmp32) { + __mark_reg32_known(false_reg, val32); + false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg->var_off); + } else { + ___mark_reg_known(false_reg, val); + false_64off = false_reg->var_off; + } break; - } case BPF_JSET: if (is_jmp32) { false_32off = tnum_and(false_32off, tnum_const(~val32)); -- cgit v1.2.3 From e917be1f83ea14a68b3cf64d3da9968eaf991dae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:47:25 +0200 Subject: bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals commit 3844d153a41adea718202c10ae91dc96b37453b5 upstream. Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds. This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Before: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin. Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0. After: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values") Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: John Fastabend Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++----------------------------------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/bpf') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 20ffc609259c..15ddc4292bc0 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1249,6 +1249,21 @@ static void __reg_bound_offset(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) reg->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(var64_off), var32_off); } +static void reg_bounds_sync(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) +{ + /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */ + __update_reg_bounds(reg); + /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */ + __reg_deduce_bounds(reg); + /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */ + __reg_bound_offset(reg); + /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds + * slightly, e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), + * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. + */ + __update_reg_bounds(reg); +} + static bool __reg32_bound_s64(s32 a) { return a >= 0 && a <= S32_MAX; @@ -1290,16 +1305,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) * so they do not impact tnum bounds calculation. */ __mark_reg64_unbounded(reg); - __update_reg_bounds(reg); } - - /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds - * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), - * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. - */ - __reg_deduce_bounds(reg); - __reg_bound_offset(reg); - __update_reg_bounds(reg); + reg_bounds_sync(reg); } static bool __reg64_bound_s32(s64 a) @@ -1315,7 +1322,6 @@ static bool __reg64_bound_u32(u64 a) static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) { __mark_reg32_unbounded(reg); - if (__reg64_bound_s32(reg->smin_value) && __reg64_bound_s32(reg->smax_value)) { reg->s32_min_value = (s32)reg->smin_value; reg->s32_max_value = (s32)reg->smax_value; @@ -1324,14 +1330,7 @@ static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) reg->u32_min_value = (u32)reg->umin_value; reg->u32_max_value = (u32)reg->umax_value; } - - /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds - * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), - * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. - */ - __reg_deduce_bounds(reg); - __reg_bound_offset(reg); - __update_reg_bounds(reg); + reg_bounds_sync(reg); } /* Mark a register as having a completely unknown (scalar) value. */ @@ -5230,9 +5229,7 @@ static void do_refine_retval_range(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, int ret_type, ret_reg->s32_max_value = meta->msize_max_value; ret_reg->smin_value = -MAX_ERRNO; ret_reg->s32_min_value = -MAX_ERRNO; - __reg_deduce_bounds(ret_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(ret_reg); - __update_reg_bounds(ret_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(ret_reg); } static int @@ -6197,11 +6194,7 @@ reject: if (!check_reg_sane_offset(env, dst_reg, ptr_reg->type)) return -EINVAL; - - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); - + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0) return -EACCES; if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) { @@ -6939,10 +6932,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, /* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */ if (alu32) zext_32_to_64(dst_reg); - - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); return 0; } @@ -7131,10 +7121,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) insn->dst_reg); } zext_32_to_64(dst_reg); - - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); } } else { /* case: R = imm @@ -7693,21 +7680,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg, dst_reg->smax_value); src_reg->var_off = dst_reg->var_off = tnum_intersect(src_reg->var_off, dst_reg->var_off); - /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */ - __update_reg_bounds(src_reg); - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */ - __reg_deduce_bounds(src_reg); - __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); - /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */ - __reg_bound_offset(src_reg); - __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); - /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds - * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), - * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax. - */ - __update_reg_bounds(src_reg); - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(src_reg); + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg); } static void reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_src, -- cgit v1.2.3